DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The request for continued examination (RCE) filed 29 April 2026 has been entered. All amendments therein have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn. Thus, claims 1-15 are further examined herein.
In the claim amendment: claim 2/1 (now canceled) was inserted into claim 1; and claim 11/10 (now canceled) was inserted into claim 10. Thus, this recited subject matter was previously examined.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which an inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 10 contain the term “weakly-ionized” (or “weakly ionized”) which renders the claims indefinite. This term is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, the dividing boundary between “weakly-ionized” and “non weakly-ionized” is unknown and unclear.
The specification at paragraph [0007] states “the term weakly ionized plasma means a plasma whereby the ratio of ions to neutrals is less than about 1:100.” However, it is unclear what constitutes the phrase “about 1:100”. For example, it is unclear whether the phrase encompasses “1:90” and “1:110”. Since the phrase can be interpreted differently, the claims are prima facie indefinite. The phrase does not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement.
Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected based upon its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The reasons for rejection set forth in the prior Office Action dated 31 October 2025 are herein incorporated by reference. For the many reasons of record, Applicant’s disclosure is deemed non enabling and inoperative. Furthermore, since the claimed invention is an inoperative invention, it cannot be enabled.
For reasons already of record, the pending claims are broad enough to encompass significant non-enabled subject matter (e.g., low energy/temperature nuclear reactions (LENR) subject matter). Federal Circuit precedent has shown that claims which are broad enough to encompass significant non-enabled subject matter will be found non-enabled. For example, note: Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC, 516 F.3d 993, 997-1000 (Fed. Cir. 2008); and Automotive Technologies Intern., Inc. v. BMW of North America, Inc., 501 F.3d 1274, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 905–09 (Fed. Cir. 2004); and In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 27 USPQ2d 1510 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility.
The reasons for rejection set forth in the prior Office Action dated 31 October 2025 are herein incorporated by reference. This application claims an invention that contradicts known scientific principles. An invention that is "inoperative" (i.e., it does not operate to produce the results claimed by Applicant) is not a "useful" invention in the meaning of patent law (MPEP 2107.01).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner has reviewed Applicant's comparison of the present disclosure with the reference titled “An Approach to Nuclear Fusion Utilizing the Dynamics of High-Density Electrons and Neutrals, Part 1” (published January 31, 2025) by Wong et al. This reference has been fully considered. Even if the reference contained the features alleged by Applicant, it still does not provide any supporting evidence that overcomes the rejections. For example, it does not provide enablement support for the recited invention. Applicant's arguments do not cure the deficiencies noted by the examiner.
Furthermore, the present application claims priority to 2013. It is impermissible to use a later reference (which shows the state of the art existing after the effective filing date of the application) to determine whether the present application is enabled. In re Koller, 613 F.2d 819, 823 n. 5, 204 USPQ 702, 706 n.5 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2124.
Conclusion
All claims are patentably indistinct from claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). Prosecution on the merits is closed.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
RCE Eligibility
Since prosecution is closed, this application is now eligible for a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114. Filing an RCE helps to ensure entry of an amendment to the claims and/or the specification.
Contact Information
Examiner Daniel Wasil can be reached at (571) 272-4654, on Monday-Thursday from 10:00-4:00 EST. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/DANIEL WASIL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Reg. No. 45,303
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights